1. The plaintiff is the appellant before me. The suit is for maintenance. The defendants contend that the suit is not properly constituted as necessary persons are not parties to the suit.
2. The suit is based upon Ex. A, a teer-deed, executed by plaintiff's father Raman Menon in favour of Narayani Amma. Raman Menon had four daughters and two sons. He executed the document in 1888 in favour of Narayani Amma, but the document, recited that Raman Menon's properties were assigned in favour of Narayani Amma and 'those children, boys and girls who are uterine relations below you and to your mother for your livelihood.. The only difference that I can find between this case and Chakkara Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker 30 Ind. Cas. 755 : 39 M.P 317 : 18 M.L.T. 255 : 29 M.L.J. 481 : (1915) M.W.N. 740 is that in that case' the document was executed in favour of all the children,, whereas in this case it is executed in favour of one child, but it was mentioned that it was in her favour and in favour of her brothers and sisters. I do not think this fact makes any difference in the construction of the document. It is not for me, in construing it, to say whether that decision is right or wrong. It is a Full Bench decision and purports to follow another Full Bench decision. I am bound to hold that the effect of this document, Ex. A, is to constitute a tavazhi. The question whether if the document is in favour of some of the children alone, a tavazhi is created as in Chakkara Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker 30 Ind. Cas. 755 : 39 M.P 317 : 18 M.L.T. 255 : 29 M.L.J. 481 : (1915) M.W.N. 740 does not arise and to constitute a tavazhi of all the children does not offend against the ordinary ideas of Malabar Law Holding, therefore, that the donees under Ex. A with their mother constituted a tavazhi, I think it follows that the karnavan of the tavazhi must be a party to the suit. The children of the donees also will be included in the tavazhi and the karnavan of the tavazhi is a necessary party to the. suit. ' Mr. Ramakrishna Iyer contended that the karnavan might now be made a party and the case remitted. There is no objection to such a procedure in a proper case; but in this case the point was decided by the Courts below in the way in which I am now holding and it does not appear that any such request was made in the Courts below. After all it will not help the plaintiff in any way if I comply with the plaintiff's request. The pleas of limitation cannot be got rid of and costs cannot be got rid of. I do not see, therefore, the purpose of allowing the plaint to be amended.
3. The second appeal is dismissed with, costs.